OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

San Jose Planning Commission Meeting - June 24, 2026: General Plan 4-Year Review & Elections

Planning Commission — Wednesday, June 24, 2026
BodySan Jose, California
SessionPlanning Commission
DateWednesday, June 24, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:09:08
Transcript — Verbatim
0:06

Good evening.

0:07

My name is Carlos Rosario and I'm the chair of the planning commission.

0:10

Welcome to this planning commission meeting.

0:12

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

0:14

The parking validation machine for the garage underneath City Hall is in located in the back at the top of the stairs.

0:22

First, we'll start off with a salute to the flag.

0:24

If you are able to, please stand.

0:29

I think that's just the flag.

0:34

And to the Republic for which it stands.

0:38

Under individual HS for all.

0:43

Almost got it in the last meeting.

0:45

Almost.

0:48

Next we'll move to the roll call.

0:51

Vice Chair Bickford.

0:54

Commissioner Barossio.

0:56

Here.

0:57

Commissioner Bondal?

0:58

Here.

0:59

Commissioner Cantrell.

1:02

Commissioner Cow.

1:03

Here.

1:03

Commissioner Casey.

1:05

Here.

1:05

Commissioner Escobar.

1:07

Here.

1:07

Commissioner Wynne?

1:08

Here.

1:09

Commissioner Olivario?

1:10

Yes.

1:11

Commissioner Young.

1:12

Here.

1:13

Myself is here.

1:14

We have a full house.

1:16

All right.

1:17

Summary of hearing procedures.

1:19

If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located on the table near the audiovisual technician and deposit the completed card in the basket.

1:28

There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and at the side entrance.

1:32

The procedure for the hearing is as follows.

1:34

After staff's presentations, applicants or appellants may make up to a five-minute presentation.

1:39

During the public comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards and the order received.

1:43

As your name is called, line up in the front of the microphone at the front of the chamber.

1:48

Generally, each speaker will be given two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes.

1:54

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted to each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, the number of speakers, and other factors.

2:01

Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted.

2:04

After the public testimony, the applicant or appellant may make closing remarks for up to an additional five minutes.

2:10

Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers.

2:13

Response to commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

2:16

The public hearing will then be closed, and the planning commission will take action on the item.

2:20

The planning commission may request staff to respond to public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss them.

2:26

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

2:38

The planning commission's action on rezonings, pre-zonings, general plan amendments, and code amendments is only advisory to the City Council.

2:45

The City Council will hold public hearings on these items.

2:48

Section 2012 400 of the municipal code provides that the procedures for legal protests to the City Council on rezonings and pre-zonings.100.220 of the municipal code.

3:05

Agendas and all staff reports for this meeting may be accessed at the city's website.

3:10

Call to order.

3:12

Now, before I begin, I want to remind the planning commission and members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings.

3:18

This includes commenting on the specific agenda items only and addressing the full body.

3:23

Public speakers will not engage in a conversation directly with commissioners or staff.

3:28

All members of the planning commission staff and public are expected to refrain from abusive language, repeated failure to comply with uh the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting.

3:42

This meeting of the planning commission will now come to order.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████62%
Procedural████████████16%
Affordable Housing█████████13%
Economic Development███4%
Community Engagement█2%
Parking█2%
Transportation Safety█1%
Summary of Proceedings

San Jose Planning Commission Meeting - June 24, 2026

This regular meeting of the San Jose Planning Commission, chaired by Carlos Rosario, focused primarily on the General Plan 4-Year Review Policy Framework, required per goal IP-2. The commission considered a series of staff recommendations covering residential capacity, small multifamily housing, urban village strategy, and jobs-to-employed-resident ratio. After extensive public testimony and commissioner deliberation, the commission approved most recommendations, with one notable exception on the Winchester Boulevard corridor. The meeting concluded with the election of new chair and vice chair for fiscal year 2026-27.

Consent Calendar

  • Unanimously approved the consent calendar consisting solely of meeting minutes.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Michelle (Cory neighborhood): Opposed urban residential (UR) zoning on Winchester Boulevard, citing pedestrian safety, parking overflow from Valley Fair, and loss of business tax base. Advocated for mixed-use neighborhood (MUN).
  • Liana Oli (Cory neighborhood): Argued the proposal was scattershot, not a plan, and objected to UR as irreversible. Preferred MUN.
  • Ken Hiddleman: Supported housing but urged MUN, not UR.
  • Kelly McDonough (Cory neighborhood): Said public transit in the area is nearly nonexistent, so densifying without transit is dangerous and contrary to Vision Zero.
  • Lisa Miller (Cory resident): Noted UR density with density bonus could reach 190 units/acre; requested MUN as reasonable growth.
  • Robert Wood (California Faculty Association, SJSU): Favored more ambitious housing capacity, including reevaluating growth areas, housing in single-family zones, and allowing housing on PQP lands.
  • Greg Carlson (Concerned Cory Neighbors): Proposed MUN for Winchester corridor, not UR.
  • Alison Siglioni (SV@Home): Submitted a letter from multiple community leaders supporting expanded allowable uses on school and faith lands (PQP). Opposed a limited approach that could create inequities.
  • Teresa Doe (San Jose YIMBY): Supported staff recommendations for increased density, including PQP and missing middle housing.
  • Benjamin White (Winchester corridor resident): Urged MUN as a compromise.
  • Harte Suamela (Santa Clara resident adjacent to Cory): Concerned about parking and lack of reliable transit; urged less dramatic expansion.

Discussion Items

Staff Presentation

  • Ruth Cueto (Principal Planner) introduced the four-year review, a culmination of a nine-month task force effort. Four topics: residential capacity, jobs-employed-resident balance, small multifamily housing, and urban village strategy.
  • Outreach: 5 community meetings, 16 stakeholder meetings, 6 neighborhood meetings, 3 focus groups, 8 task force meetings. Over 800 in-person participants, 422 comments; 400 virtual participants, 610 comments.
  • Jobs to Employed Resident (JER) Ratio: Current target is 1.1, but observed average since 2011 is 0.82. Staff recommended maintaining the target to support fiscal and environmental goals.
  • Residential Capacity: Proposed increasing densities in several land use designations: Residential Neighborhood (RN) max from 8 to 32 du/ac; Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN) from 30 to 20-50 du/ac; Urban Residential (UR) from 30-95 to 50-95 du/ac. Also proposed targeted changes along Winchester Boulevard and The Alameda.
  • Public Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands: Staff recommended developing a framework to evaluate potential land use changes, preserving an inventory of community-serving sites rather than a wholesale change.
  • Urban Village Strategy: Recommended consolidating 12 local transit villages into 4 corridor-based plans, deferring planning for now; prioritizing commercial corridor and center urban villages; eliminating individual plans for neighborhood urban villages.
  • Small Multifamily Housing: Proposed citywide increase to 32 du/ac on most RN properties (covering over 80% of residential land), with a ministerial approval process for most projects, and a 35-foot/3-story height limit.

Commissioner Deliberations

  • Item 1A (Residential Capacity designation changes except Winchester): Approved unanimously, 11-0.
  • Item 1A3 (Winchester Boulevard corridor): Multiple motions failed (5-6 on each):
    • Motion to adopt staff recommendation (UR) failed.
    • Motion for staff recommendation except 826 North Winchester (make that MUN) failed.
    • Motion to make all proposed UR parcels MUN failed.
    • Result: No recommendation from the commission; the planning commission forwarded the split record.
  • Item 1B (PQP lands) : Approved staff recommendation unanimously, 11-0. (Develop criteria and evaluate requests.)
  • Item 2 (Missing Middle/Small Multifamily, Urban Villages, JER ratio) : After pulling 2A for separate vote, approved the rest of Section 2 (including urban village strategy and JER ratio) unanimously.
  • Item 2A (small multifamily density increase to 32 du/ac) : Approved 9-2. Commissioners Olivario and Chair Rosario voted no. Olivario expressed concerns about mistrust and unclear outcomes from similar policies elsewhere.
  • Item 4A (JER ratio) : Approved unanimously 11-0, maintaining the 1.1 target.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Calendar: Approved.
  • General Plan 4-Year Review – Policy Framework (Item 8A) :
    • The commission forwarded recommendations to City Council with support for most staff proposals, except on the Winchester corridor (no consensus) and a minority opposing the 32 du/ac citywide increase.
    • Staff will now proceed with environmental review; final recommendations to Planning Commission and City Council are due December 2027.
  • Election of Officers for Fiscal Year 2026-27:
    • Chair: Commissioner Cantrell (unanimous, 11-0).
    • Vice Chair: Commissioner Young (unanimous, 11-0).
  • Recognition: Commissioner Luis Barroso recognized for his service.
  • Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening. My name is Carlos Rosario and I'm the chair of the planning commission. Welcome to this planning commission meeting. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The parking validation machine for the garage underneath City Hall is in located in the back at the top of the stairs. First, we'll start off with a salute to the flag. If you are able to, please stand. I think that's just the flag. And to the Republic for which it stands. Under individual HS for all. Almost got it in the last meeting. Almost. Next we'll move to the roll call. Vice Chair Bickford. Commissioner Barossio. Here. Commissioner Bondal? Here. Commissioner Cantrell. Commissioner Cow. Here. Commissioner Casey. Here. Commissioner Escobar. Here. Commissioner Wynne? Here. Commissioner Olivario? Yes. Commissioner Young. Here. Myself is here. We have a full house. All right. Summary of hearing procedures. If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located on the table near the audiovisual technician and deposit the completed card in the basket. There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and at the side entrance. The procedure for the hearing is as follows. After staff's presentations, applicants or appellants may make up to a five-minute presentation. During the public comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards and the order received. As your name is called, line up in the front of the microphone at the front of the chamber. Generally, each speaker will be given two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes. At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted to each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, the number of speakers, and other factors. Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted. After the public testimony, the applicant or appellant may make closing remarks for up to an additional five minutes. Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers. Response to commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance. The public hearing will then be closed, and the planning commission will take action on the item. The planning commission may request staff to respond to public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss them. If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com